Musical influences and origins are related: set theory (for Aborgman)

[wade_b]

To resolve a dispute in a now locked thread, as it relates to "influences" and "origins" of musical style.

The assertion was made that there is no equivalence between these two concepts, that they are "two different things".

That is patently false.

Let:
Domain D = Musical influences
Set A = Musical "origin" (primary influence)

Set A is a proper subset of the universal set U, as it consists of some but not all elements of the universal set U.

The 2 sets are not equivalent, but it becomes clear that "musical origins" are in fact an influence - one could say that they are the "primary" influence.

This is all pretty tedious stuff for a bass forum, but some feel the need to trot out academic concepts here in an apparent show of superiority, and I felt the need to respond in kind.

[bongomania]

Very petty, and not relevant to the point aborgman was actually trying to make. Fail, sorry, lose a turn.

[mulchor]

I think the problem that came up in that thread is that some people take a traditional academic approach with a taxonomy and is-related-to based on systematic thinking.

Other people don't.

Everyone's gonna have their comfort zone. To some folks a tomato is a fruit. Other people really don't want it in a fruit salad.

Or maybe more pertinent. Some people might think a baked pasta in tomato sauce dish is uniquely Italian, inspired only by Naples. Some other might want to trace the origin of tomatoes and noodles. Historically correct, maybe, but it doesn't taste at all like Chinese or Mexican food.

That's why that other thread was hopelessly unproductive.

[bass12]

Originally Posted by wade_b

This is all pretty tedious stuff for a bass forum, but some feel the need to trot out academic concepts here in an apparent show of superiority, and I felt the need to respond in kind.

I read the closed thread in question and I saw no "trotting out of academic concepts" for the sake of demonstrating any kind of "superiority". What I did see was some people presenting some well-considered and logical explanations for points that clearly weren't getting across to some. I also saw your very defensive response to aborgman's very reasonable (and well-reasoned) approach to debate. You seemed to take exception to this intelligent approach, calling it "jive" and referring to "language lawyer tactics" (whatever that means). And now this? You say that you are "responding in kind" with your post which would suggest to me that what you really want to get across could just as easily have been expressed with the use of one simple icon:

[Febs]

Originally Posted by wade_b

The assertion was made that there is no equivalence between these two concepts, that they are "two different things".

In that closed thread, aborgman challenged the assertion that influence is a subset of origins, arguing that if it were, "all influences would be origins, and that is obviously false." He further asserted, "Origins are a subset of influence."

Your current argument--that "'musical origins' are in fact an influence"--is entirely consistent with aborgman's argument.

This is all pretty tedious stuff for a bass forum, but some feel the need to trot out academic concepts here in an apparent show of superiority, and I felt the need to respond in kind.

The irony of this sentence is staggering.

[champbassist]

You have previously made the following statement:

Originally Posted by wade_b

Influence is a subset of origin.

If Influence ⊂ Origin, the statement that:

Originally Posted by wade_b

"musical origins" are in fact an influence

is false until & unless musical origins and influence are equal (not equivalent) sets which is easily refutable: obviously origin =/= influence, something that you yourself have stated, and is, with even a little common sense, refutable.

Your thinking is becoming clouded by the impulses of confrontational arguments. Try to relax, smell the flowers, enjoy the summer breeze

Also,

Originally Posted by wade_b

Set A is a proper subset of the universal set U...
The 2 sets are not equivalent

Is redundant. If A is a proper subset of U, A can't be equivalent to U.

From this, I'm further led to believe that you are confusing equivalent and equal sets.

Equivalent sets: the two sets have same cardinality regardless of constituent elements.

Equal sets: the two sets not only have equal cardinality, but also identical elements.

Edit: Febs beat me! He makes a nice logical statement without stepping into this mathematical pile o' poo

Edit 2: Because I want clarity, I'd also like to note this:

Originally Posted by Febs

He further asserted, "Origins are a subset of influence."

But, aborgman had previously claimed that origins and influences are two completely different things, i.e. disjoint sets.

I do agree with the statement aborgman made initially, i.e. the two are different.